In Box

Divide and Conquer

For Barack Obama, maybe getting nothing passed in Congress isn't so bad after all.

Since the new, Republican-dominated Congress was sworn in at the beginning of 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama has seen his domestic agenda stalled, his foreign-aid budget slashed, his signature victory -- last year's health-care bill -- threatened with repeal, and his government brought to the verge of a shutdown. But maybe he should look on the bright side.

Historically, American presidents have been much more popular during times of divided government. Over the last half-century, voters have been about 17 percent more likely to approve of the commander in chief's performance when Congress is controlled by the opposing party, according to a 2002 study in the Journal of Politics. Political scientists typically attributed this to the fact that voters tend to be more likely to assign blame than praise: When the president is less powerful, there's less reason to criticize him.

But what does this mean on foreign affairs, where the president has more power to act independently of Congress and thus should, by all rights, be the one to blame when things go wrong? In fact, as political scientists Brian Newman and Kevin Lammert of Pepperdine University found in a recent paper published in Presidential Studies Quarterly, the effect is slightly more pronounced when it comes to foreign policy: Voters are 18 percent more likely to approve of the president's handling of world affairs during a period of divided government. It's possible that voters are simply unaware of the president's greater control over foreign policy. The authors also suggest that during times of international crisis -- after the 9/11 attacks or during the first Gulf War, for instance -- the president and Congress tend to work more closely together, something voters usually support.

A few days after the killing of Osama bin Laden, Obama was benefiting from this effect: Fifty-one percent of Americans approved of his foreign policy, according to a May 5 Quinnipiac poll, compared with 41 percent at the end of March. If the numbers drop again, he'll only have himself to blame.

Getty Images

In Box

Chug for Growth

Drink and be merry -- it's all for the common good.

The myth of the smug teetotaler is no joke. Many of the most popular theories of economic growth in wealthy countries, dating back to the Protestant work ethic of Max Weber, emphasize the abstemious and sober virtues of the well-to-do. And from the 18th-century Gin Acts in Britain to Prohibition in 1920s America to a certain class of modern-day economists, there's a long tradition of blaming intemperance for the persistence of poverty.

But in fact, mounting evidence suggests that beer in particular, and the beer industry that surrounds it, may be as good for growth as excess sobriety. In some of the world's toughest investment climates, beer companies today are building factories, creating jobs, and providing vital public services, all in the pursuit of new customers for a pint. It's the brewery as economic stimulus: a formula even a frat boy could love.

In a time of unprecedented global prosperity, there are an ever-growing number of beer guzzlers worldwide. Liesbeth Colen and Johan Swinnen of the University of Leuven report that beer consumption in China in 1980 was minimal. By 2005, however, the country consumed more than 40 billion liters per year. In 1961, Brazilians drank 630 million liters of beer; in 2007 that number was 7.5 billion liters.

And it isn't just those in booming economies: Even the poorest of the poor will spend money on alcohol. Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo of MIT have shown that people living on a dollar a day or less can spend 6 cents or more of that on alcohol and tobacco. Add those pennies up and you get a potential market worth billions of dollars a year. Robust demand in even the poorest places is one reason that breweries invest where other industries fear to tread. In just the last few months, Heineken won a bid for two state-owned breweries in Ethiopia for $163 million; Rwanda's stock exchange recorded its first-ever initial public offering that involved a local brewery; and SABMiller dropped an additional $15 million on top of an initial $37 million investment in its brewery operation in Juba, the main city in the aspiring breakaway country of Southern Sudan.

These investments aren't just good for Big Beer. In Juba, SABMiller's brewery will provide tax revenue, lease payments, more than 200 local jobs, and increased demand for local agricultural produce. In more stable markets, breweries can be a considerable economic force. In 2005, East African Breweries was the first company in Kenya to reach $1 billion in market capitalization, and the company paid about $44 million in corporate income tax last year.

Of course, when it comes to booze, you can have too much of a good thing. The World Health Organization has estimated that as many as 76 million people suffer from alcohol disorders and that alcohol is a causal factor in 20 to 50 percent of all cases of liver cancer, homicide, epileptic seizures, and motor-vehicle accidents worldwide. And one has to wonder about the choices of those living on a dollar a day in rural Mexico who are spending more on alcohol and tobacco than on education, or South Africans, who spend more than three times as much on those private vices as on education and health care combined.

But the dangers of excess are much lower in poor countries like Zambia (average beer consumption: 5 liters a year) than in rich countries like the United States (more than 80 liters per year). And those risks need to be balanced by beer's potential to bring about improvements in the quality of life, if only by providing taxes and employment income.

Indeed, beer may have been a force for growth for a long time. Colen and Swinnen note that beer consumption is higher in Protestant countries. What if the early success of Protestant-dominated economies wasn't about Weber's famed work ethic at all, but about the impact of breweries? Of course, it may be just as outlandish to argue that progress is driven by hops and barley as by the fear of eternal damnation -- but at least it's more fun to discuss over a pint.